Belief in God is no longer necessary.

[secrets in symmetry]

Ah but Occam's razor where the simplest answer has to be the right one.

You either think there are squidzillions of universes or just 'God done it'.

In the last year, a number of rather well-known scientists have (reluctantly) accepted that fine-tuning exists, and they're now looking for new "deeper" explanations of it - which is consistent with an Occam's razor approach.

[Alrock]

One is that we live in one of a squidzillion universes.

There is no need for a squidzillion universes (though there may be). Just one will do, just so happened that the laws of nature turned out the way they did & if they didn't we wouldn't be here to even debate the issue.

[secrets in symmetry]

There is no need for a squidzillion universes (though there may be). Just one will do, just so happened that the laws of nature turned out the way they did & if they didn't we wouldn't be here to even debate the issue.

Did you absorb anything I wrote?

God help us!

[weezer 316]

SIS your point is circular and defeats itself, but thats bye the bye. If belief in god is no longer neccesary then the last need for one is gone. Everyone is already more moral than the gods they worship, we are already far superior at caring for the needy than we ever were under theocracy and belief in god is irrelevant when i comes to answering scientific questions like the one your pose.

Now all we need is for islam to start going the same and we might go forward as a civilization

[secrets in symmetry]

SIS your point is circular and defeats itself, but thats bye the bye. If belief in god is no longer neccesary then the last need for one is gone.

Hmm, yet another one that apparently doesn't understand the (size of the) problem.

Try thinking for long enough to put together a coherent argument for once weezy, and you might make a useful contribution.

What I wrote isn't an argument for God, it's part of a framework in which one might be able to make some progress in understanding our world. The fune-tuning problem is real. It's arguably one of the biggest conundrums in science today.

[springparker]

brave new world

[Better Out Than In]

When they discovered other planets and then began looking for some that might support life the Catholic church ordered a review (can't remember title for it). The conclusion was that life could not exist on other planets but if, perchance, it was discovered, then that was because God put it there. But I do worry about what was there before the big bang?

[Mrs Bucket]

I am enjoying this thread. more please and try to keep it simple. Thank you all in anticipation.

[Saveman]

Hmm, yet another one that apparently doesn't understand the (size of the) problem.

Try thinking for long enough to put together a coherent argument for once weezy, and you might make a useful contribution.

What I wrote isn't an argument for God, it's part of a framework in which one might be able to make some progress in understanding our world. The fune-tuning problem is real. It's arguably one of the biggest conundrums in science today.

There's no conundrum. The universe has been designed and created. Romans 1:20

[RagnarRocks]

By conundrums do you mean the parts which don't act as science has predicted but is now studying to find out the solution? or is there some more mystical slant to it. From what I've seen so far science is quite admirably describing how the entirety of everything works and those parts which it doesn't it simply says we don't fully understand that yet. But people will still quote a single line out of a very old oft poorly translated and only viewed in a thoroughly adulterated state from the many originals book and claim there within lies the answer. I'm afraid religion especially most modern ones hold very few truths and society seems to be managing better with its waning influence !

[weezer 316]

Hmm, yet another one that apparently doesn't understand the (size of the) problem.

Try thinking for long enough to put together a coherent argument for once weezy, and you might make a useful contribution.

What I wrote isn't an argument for God, it's part of a framework in which one might be able to make some progress in understanding our world. The fune-tuning problem is real. It's arguably one of the biggest conundrums in science today.

SIS, your talking nonsense mate. Some numbers are what they are and are that way for reasons we may never (and definetly dont at present) understand, therefore your reduced to pointing out an unknown, and making claims about it, just like shamans 2000 years ago did. We dont even know what 96% if the universe is made of, never mind under what conditions life can live.

At present, your "fine tuning" consists of some lumps of carbon and water etching out an existence on the skin of one small planet. Its a ludicrous, and a religious-esque arguement, to say life couldnt exist if the laws of physics were different as we have nothing but a sole example in an incredibly insignificant spec of dust to work with, with the current laws! So keep your nonsense to yourself please.

[Rheghead]

There's no conundrum. The universe has been designed and created. Romans 1:20

But what do you think of the idea that the Universe requires observers to make the decision that the Universe has been designed and created?

[Saveman]

I believe the universe had observers as it was being designed and created.

[weezer 316]

Lol, just lol

[secrets in symmetry]

SIS, your talking nonsense mate. Some numbers are what they are and are that way for reasons we may never (and definetly dont at present) understand, therefore your reduced to pointing out an unknown, and making claims about it, just like shamans 2000 years ago did. We dont even know what 96% if the universe is made of, never mind under what conditions life can live.

At present, your "fine tuning" consists of some lumps of carbon and water etching out an existence on the skin of one small planet. Its a ludicrous, and a religious-esque arguement, to say life couldnt exist if the laws of physics were different as we have nothing but a sole example in an incredibly insignificant spec of dust to work with, with the current laws! So keep your nonsense to yourself please.

Lol weezy, you're such a Dawkins!

I explained the problem in a previous post, and I could give you links to detailed explanations from some of the world's top scientists, but I suspect you still won't "get it", so I won't bother....

[Saveman]

Lol weezy, you're such a Dawkins!
<snip>.

Ouch! No need to be nasty!

[secrets in symmetry]

Ouch! No need to be nasty!

Lol!

Would I be insulted if someone called me a Dawkins? In this context - yes, I probably would!

[gaza]

You believe this, and they believe that, Well i believe we should reboot the world and start again with commonsense, respect, manners, and goodwill to everyone, EH. -------------- And shoot anyone who steps out of line more than once. THE END

[weezer 316]

SIS, you can quote who, what when and where you want, its irrelevant. Your argument, if its even that, is self defeating. You dont recognise it, thats your issue. Assuming this, that and the next is religious, or ignorant as its normally known. lets just stick to what can be proven eh?

Or not....

[Rheghead]

You believe this, and they believe that, Well i believe we should reboot the world and start again with commonsense, respect, manners, and goodwill to everyone, EH. -------------- And shoot anyone who steps out of line more than once. THE END

Don't you think there are two forms of Respect at play sometimes?

Respect from the point of view that someone is talking complete sense and you respect them for saying whatever.

Then there is the other kind of respect where everyone's opinion shall have the right to be heard no matter how wacky and implausible it is.

Which form of Respect deserves the most Respect?